Author Topic: Eminent Domain - right or wrong? (Read 546 times)

gofaster · « **on:** December 09, 2003, 02:22:04 PM »

The government can seize your land to build a road, whether you like it or not. The government has to provide you adequate adequate compensation for your loss. You can challenge their figures in court and the state will pick up the tab for your lawyer, but no matter what you do the state is getting your land one way or another. The only question is how much the government will pay for your property.

Is this the American way?

Or do you defend your ownership rights with physical force?

Dune · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2003, 02:30:35 PM »

You can never use deadly force to defend property. You can threaten to use it, but not actually use it.

Eminent domain is subject to the law's ebb and flow. At times the gov't can take anything they want. Then too many people complain and the court's leash gov't and it becomes restrictive. Then, after awhile, the gov't begins to expand its powers until it gets slapped down again.

In Phoenix just recently, two cities (Phoenix and Scottsdale IIRC) both got slapped down hard while trying to take property for development.

ra · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2003, 02:38:36 PM »

Eminent domain is one of the less abused government powers. They have to pay you for your property, and you can fight back in court. You can't always win, but at least you have rights.

Taxation, on the other hand, is a total screw job. PAY US OR WE WILL SEND YOU TO JAIL.

ra

Pongo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2003, 02:56:21 PM »

They were exercising their constitutional right.

Mini D · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:02:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
They were exercising their constitutional right.

The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order, but it does provide them with the means to do so. Therein lies the power it gives to the people.

MiniD

kappa · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:04:07 PM »

Constitution?? The constitution does not give the government the right to take its citizen's land.......

k
AoM

Tarmac · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:04:53 PM »

Too bad the family survived.

gofaster · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:05:46 PM »

The courts will always be more powerful than a man with a gun. And should remain that way.

midnight Target · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:13:06 PM »

The State bought my aunt's house for a freeway development in 1971. She got a good deal on the house and made a fortune by accident on So. Cal. real estate.

The Freeway was the 105... it opened in 1993. And no, they weren't working on it for 20 years.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:13:42 PM »

untill they are no longer on the side of liberty. then the man/men with the gun/s should be more powerfull. the founding fathers were quite clear on that.

miko2d · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:50:00 PM »

Mini D: The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order,

The Constitution does not do anything. It certainly did not prevent government from illegally invading ceasing their property. That id of course if the federal governmentw as involved.
I do not know what the Constitution of S.C. says about that.

miko

Pongo · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:50:52 PM »

How did the founding fathers say that you could know if you were being oppressed or pissed off?

Mini D · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:53:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Mini D: The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order,

The Constitution does not do anything. It certainly did not prevent government from illegally invading ceasing their property. That id of course if the federal governmentw as involved.
I do not know what the Constitution of S.C. says about that.

miko

Why do you qoute me out of context to say something entirely different?

As for the constitution not doing anything... I think you're wrong on so many levels that it's simply amazing. But, like I said, it doesn't give them the right to do what they did... but it provides the means by which to do it. Freedom is a double edged sword.

MiniD

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:24:34 PM »

Columbus suburb tried to take a residential street corner by eminent domain in order to turn it into commercial development. The suburb lost in court because they ruled that eminent domain should not be used to force a residential home to become an office block. In other words, just because the office block would provide more taxes than a house, you can not use eminent domain for this purpose.

Now, if the town proved they needed a street, that might be another matter.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:32:34 PM »

Ok if used for what they are supposed to be used for like roads, fire stations, police stations ETC.

Not OK when a ****ty city like Fremont California uses it to force buisnes owners to give up there land, the land they own so a new better shopping center can be put in.

Thats just ****ing wrong, and it happends.

Just go into Scenario game and hobby and ask Chuck the owner.

To add insult to injurie, now its not going to be a shoping center, but houses...

****ING BULL****.